From: Susan Kniep,
President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Website: http://ctact.org/
email: fctopresident@ctact.org
860-524-6501
September 5, 2005
I want to take this opportunity to thank
all who make this publication possible and acknowledge the appreciation of our readers
who tell me they turn to Tax Talk for information they have not found
elsewhere. Donna is one such
contributor. We are all indebted to her
for her tireless efforts in providing us with valuable information on tax
related issues. Thank you Donna for
your most recent publication below and all that you do for taxpayers throughout
our State and those beyond who take the time to visit FCTO’s
website. I also want to acknowledge and thank Ann Mikulak
and Helene Groman of the New Britain Taxpayers Association, C.P.O.A.
which is the oldest tax group in our state having recently celebrated their
75th year. Below they share with us
correspondence between them and Governor Rell on
State bonding. . If you wish to have your news article or item
of interest published, please send to me at fctopresident@ctact.org. Please note that Previous Tax Talk Issues can
be found on our Website at http://ctact.org/ Susan Kniep
WELCOME TO THE 56TH EDITION
OF
TAX TALK
American Red Cross
For those wishing to help those devastated by
Katrina
http://www.redcross.org/donate/donate.html
http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov/
****
How to contact your ...
Washington Legislators
Connecticut Legislators
State
Representative, State Senator and Congressperson
****
Eminent Domain
Watch
****
Retirement Benefits for State
Legislators
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/lm/rpt/2003-R-0521.htm
****
Donna McCalla, ctjodi@sbcglobal.net
Hebron Dollars and
Sense
Mill Rates
2005-06 based on Grand Lists 2004
August 23, 2005
Hi, all. I wanted to get this out as soon as
possible as I know that several of you are interested in obtaining the final
data. The attached spreadsheet lists all mill rate increases for FY
2005-06, based on GL data for FY 2004. The state will not be
releasing/confirming this data until December 2005 or January 2006. Of the six towns that have not yet approved a
budget, five have set a mill rate despite an unapproved budget, which is
reflected in the spreadsheet. Only Westbrook has not set a mill rate for
FY 2005-06, and, it appears, will only do so once they have an approved
budget. Edie Duncan of Granby was able to make the calls to the
remaining towns and fill in the blanks from the preview I sent out last
weekend. This is not always easy to do.... some towns have non-standard
hours; others, you get transferred to a number of departments before you get to
the right person.... so I thank Edie for taking on this tedious job... I believe the data is accurate, but if you
see any corrections, please let me know as soon as you can. For many,
budget planning starts in just a few short months, and accurate data on
FY 2005-06 mill rate increases may be helpful to municipalities for that
planning process. For next year's data
spreadsheets, I will be listing the actual GL growth numbers and mill rate
numbers in a data column, rather than in the Notes column. The GL growth
in percentage terms has always been listed in a data column on the
Education Budget spreadsheet, which goes out to you in January, February,
and March of each year. I hope
the planned addition of these new data items on the primary CT Tax Increase Comparisons
spreadsheet will prove helpful to you next year. Thanks, Donna
Please refer to the attached excel spreadsheet.
****
Helene Groman, HRGroman@aol.com
Citizens Property Owners Assn of New Britain,
Communications to and from Governor Rell on State Bonding
July 6, 2005 Letter CPOA Wrote to Governor Rell
The following is the letter we sent to the Governor
on July 6, 2005. Helene
Dear Governor Rell: The Citizens Property
Owners Assn. of New Britain,
the oldest taxpyer group in the State, commends you
on your stand for "justified" spending on the Bonding proposal for
2006 and 2007. We too are concerned about the amount of proposed
bonding. While some consider these monies a "windfall", the
high interest on the millions and millions in bonds is now killing
taxpayers! The CPOA recently learned there is no paper trail or 'checks
and balances' on bonded monies that are submitted to requesting agencies.
We also learned that so-called non-profit groups requested and received bonded
monies that included costly administrative costs. We understand using
these funds for administrative costs is illegal!
Therefore, the CPOA respectfully asks of you and the Bonding Commission, that
all bonding requests be itemized and carefully screened before they are granted.
Also, that a follow-up notarized report be submitted by recipients showing
exactly how allocated funds were used. We look for the elimination of
loopholes and unjustified spending.
Your response to our conerns would be greatly
appreciated. Sincerely, Mrs. Ann Mikulak, President CPOA
The CPOA (Citizens Property Owners Assn) of New Britain, received two
replies to its letter to Gov. Rell:
July 20, 2005 Letter CPOA Received from Governor Rell’s Office
Governor Rell referred to me your
letter of July 6, 2005 concerning the use of state bond funds. Governor Rell is very concerned with the amount of debt incurred by
the state. To deal with the increasing debt we have tried to limit
allocations for new debt by the State Bond Commission over the past year and
that policy will continue. Holding the line on allocations will
ultimately result in a decrease in state debt outstanding. As to your second point,
please rest assured that there is indeed an extensive paper trail and extensive
review and follow up on the use of bond funds. Applicants are required to
complete extensive applications that are vetted by the state agency.
Administrative costs of the grant recipient are not permissible use of the
funds in most cases. Upon aproval by the state
agency, the request for bonding is reviewed by my staff before any
recommendation is made to the Governor and the State Bond Commission. Finally, after funds are
allocated by the State Bond Commission the grant recipient signs a contract
with the state agency spelling out the terms of the use of the funds. The
money is held in special state bank accounts for the recipient to draw down
upon for approved grant expenses. Grants to non-profits and private
entities also include liens on the property to protect the state's
investment. The accounts are also subject to annual audits. Thank you for expressing
your concerns. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to
contact my office.
Sincerely, Robert L. Genuario, Secry.
Office of Policy and Management
****
Bill Polowy, wmpolowy@snet.net
Thomaston, CT
Request for Salaries of State
Representatives
August 30, 2005
FCTO is always happy to help those who are
attempting to find information. After
doing some research on Bill’s request, I received the following from State
Comptroller Nancy
Wyman’s office which I thought you might all be interested in reading. I also want to thank Bill for his generous
offer of a contribution to FCTO and his words of appreciation. I am frequently asked how concerned taxpayers
can help to support FCTO. Contributions can be mailed to our Treasurer, Bernie Roy at
the following address: 62 Putting Green Rd,
Trumbull, CT 06611. Please note we are a 501c4 organization, and
therefore your contribution is not tax deductible. Again, thank you!
From Bill: More than
I was looking for, Susan. Thanks for the prompt reply and
detailed information. I will continue to be a supporter of FCTO. Bill Polowy
To Bill: http://www.sots.state.ct.us/RegisterManual/SectionIII/CurrentLeg.htm
Pursuant to Section 2-8 of the Connecticut General Statutes, each
member of the general assembly, with the exception of officers, receives
a base salary of $28,000 for each year of a term. Each member also
receives a transportation allowance in the amount of $4,500 in the House
of Representatives and $5,500 in the Senate. Officers of the general
assembly are compensated as follows: Speaker of the House and President
Pro Tempore of the Senate, $38,689; Majority and Minority Leaders of the
House and Senate, $36,835; Deputy Speakers of the House and Deputy
Majority and Minority Leaders of the House and Senate, $34,446;
Assistant Majority and Minority Leaders, Majority and Minority Whips,
and Committee Chairmen (except the Joint Standing Committee on
Legislative Management), $32,241; and, Ranking Members of each Joint
Standing Committee (except Legislative Management), $30,403. Each Senate
officer also receives a $5,500 allowance for expenses, and each House
officer also receives a $4,500 allowance for expenses.
****
Jeremy Renninghoff , jrenninghoff@comcast.net
Regional school
districts and TAXES
Sept 1, 2005
Dear Susan, My name is Jeremy Renninghoff.
I am a 14-year resident of the towns of Durham and
Middlefield, which comprise Regional
School District 13. RSDs always seem to have the biggest budget increases out
of school districts in rural and suburban towns, and there is good reason.
State statutes grant a tremendous amount
of authority to regional boards of education regarding the handling of
finances. Budgets are not subject to approval by the fiscal authorities of the
member towns, and like in local school districts, there is no control over line
items. Even if the local BOFs could at least say
"cut $500.000," we all know that would come out of textbooks,
athletics, pencils, anything that directly affects students. Besides seeking an
end to binding arbitration and the prevailing wage, town leaders outside the
BOE must have the power to alter education budgets. This is especially
important in RSDs. Furthermore, in those towns where
legislative power is vested in the Town Meeting, it should have the final say
over all aspects of the budget. They are also able to transfer funds between
line items at their discretion, enabling the use of slush funds and padding in
the budget for expenses they don't want to make public. This past May the first
budget referendum for D-13 went down by 22 votes. After lots of screeching by
the townspeople (and students) over the proposed layoffs of two high school
library aides, the BOE reinstated the positions and cut $18.000 from field
trips, leaving the budget at $29M. It passed the second time around. Their
arrogance has many people including myself furious. I am even considering a
petition to form a study committee to investigate dissolution of the regional
district, despite the tremendous costs of bonding for building projects and the
sentimental feelings I have as I was a student in the district. People across
the state in towns with RSDs are losing what little
control they have over the biggest portion of local property taxes. The former head of the Waterbury Taxpayers Association, now a
resident of Middlefield, and I are seriously looking into starting a taxpayers
group in Middlefield. While we will focus on both the town and school budgets,
we might seek members from Durham
for the purpose of uniting against the government-school machine. Keep up the good fight! Jeremy Renninghoff,
Middlefield
****
STATE FUNDS TO NEW LONDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Since 1993,
the state has provided just over $ 82. 35 million in direct grants to the New
London Development Corporation (NLDC) for various development projects, all
from state bond allocations. In addition to this direct funding, the state has
provided more than $ 39 million for projects located in the NDLC development
area since 1988. A computer search of
state budgets and special acts since 1988 shows no direct appropriations to the
NDLC. In addition, a survey of the Connecticut
Development Authority’s (CDA’s) active accounts
from1991 to 2003 showed that NDLC has received no grants or loans from
CDA. GO TO THIS WEBSITE FOR THE
FULL REPORT http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0590.htm
****
STATE COMPTROLLER NANCY WYMAN
PROJECTS 2005 SURPLUS OF $ 157.4 MILLION (Sept 1, 2005)
State Comptroller Nancy Wyman today projected the state
will end the 2005 fiscal year with a net budget surplus of $157.4 million.
The surplus would have reached $777.2 million, but a
series of appropriations by the General Assembly and the Governor reduced that
to the current estimate of $157.4 million. Nearly $547 million of the original
2005 surplus has been earmarked to fund operating costs for fiscal years 2006
and 2007 – a practice that Wyman said could create significant fiscal problems
in the future. “Depending on surplus
revenue to fund future budgets creates a dollar-for-dollar hole in those
budgets,” Wyman said. “The result of this funding gimmick is the potential for
enormous budget deficits in the years ahead.”
The non-partisan Office of Fiscal Analysis is projecting budget gaps of
$642.7 million, $748.7 million, and $919.2 million in fiscal years 2008, 2009
and 2010 respectively. The net 2005
surplus of $157.4 million will be deposited into the state’s Rainy Day Fund.
That will bring the emergency fund’s balance to $459.6 million, or about 3.3
percent of net General Fund appropriations. Wyman has advocated for the
emergency fund to contain at least 10 percent of those appropriations. The 2005 fiscal year ended June 30, but the
state continued to accrue certain revenues through August that will be included
in the final surplus figure.
****
The August 25 Legislative Hearing on Eminent Domain was a
great success in the number of people who came to support changes to our
State Eminent Domain laws to prevent
abuse of and protect the property rights of Connecticut citizens. The following are some examples of the
presentations, to include my presentation on behalf of FCTO. Please take a few minutes and visit the
following website which exposes the players in the New London Development Corp
deal. http://www.cottagecoalition.org/rowland.htm The names you will definitely recognize. It is now time for the the
State to conduct a forensic audit of the millions of taxpayer dollars spent on
this project. Full disclosure should be
made of the politically influential involved in this project and the tax
dollars they have been paid. An
investigation must be conducted to determine if the NLDC had the legal
authority to impose eminent domain on the 90 families already forced from their
homes.
****
August 25, 2005
Presentation to the State's Planning & Development
Committee
By Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Eminent Domain
As the State legislature contemplates protecting the public
from eminent domain abuse, consideration should be given to conducting a full
scale investigation of those involved in the NLDC’s
take over of private property, the victimization of private citizens and their
rights, and the funneling of millions of state taxpayer dollars for contracts and to the politically influential. A forensic audit should immediately be
initiated by the State and all funds on this project should be frozen until
such an audit and investigation is conducted and concluded.
The players in this land grab deal are either in jail, are
awaiting trial, or are under federal scrutiny for their roles in other state
funded development projects. Why,
therefore, would the state legislature sit quietly and not begin their own
inquiry into former Governor Rowland and Peter Ellef’s
involvement in the NLDC deal.
I first learned of the New London Development Corp. when the
Redevelopment Agency of East Hartford, where I
had served as Mayor and on the Town Council,
transacted a development deal fashioned after an NLDC transaction. More specifically, the purchase of stock in
a shell company. The lawyers for the
town’s Redevelopment Agency stated in a letter “ The stock purchase device is
being used to avoid the purchase price being taxed as ordinary income which, we
are advised, results in a six figure tax savings to the owner of the
property.” Maybe someone on this panel
can tell us if a Connecticut
town or the state can conspire with another person or business to avoid paying
taxes in any form – state, local or federal.
Other questions include but are not limited to:
We understand the properties acquired by the NLDC are all in
its name, not that of the City.
Yet, State statutes stipulate
that "title to land taken or
acquired pursuant to a development plan shall be solely in the name of the
municipality."
Were the 90 homeowners who have left intimidated into
leaving their homes prior to the NLDC or their agents having legal authority to
even approach them to purchase their homes?
What did Atty. Jay Malcynsky, a
registered lobbyist, who was placed on retainer by the NLDC for $125,000 a year
do for this money?
Was Downes Construction
Co. retained as the principal Fort
Trumbull contractor? Were the contracts bid or no bid? Did Downes or his
subcontractors contribute o Rowland's election campaign. Was Downes' lobbyist Jay Malcynsky?
Another registered lobbyist, Atty. Jay Levin, was hired by the DECD to write the Fort Trumbull
neighborhood Municipal Development Plan. What has he been paid to date?
Philip Michalowski, who testified
before you during the last hearing,was also an NLDC
contractor responsible for many people losing their homes. What has he been paid?
The NLDC has paid millions to consultants, planners,
marketing firms and other advisors. Who
at the State is monitoring these funds?
****
New York Daily News
WHO’S EATING YOU ALIVE?
By Steven Malanga,
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005
The battle between taxpayers and tax-eaters has been joined. For the past 40 years, a new political
dynamic has been emerging at the state and local level, as those who benefit
from an expanding government have formed into an effective coalition that has
grabbed ever more political power, often using it to advocate for higher taxes
and more spending. This coalition, which I call the New New
Left, consists of powerful unions representing public employees, social service
advocates whose programs live off government funding and health care workers
and hospital administrators whose institutions rely more and more on government
to pay the bills. The power of this coalition has reached a tipping point in
some places, where public sector political forces have seized control from
taxpayers. This public sector political
movement results from the merging of several distinct forces. One is the growth
of government worker unionization. Although originally banned from forming into
unions because they were protected by civil service, public employees gradually
began in the 1950s earning the right to organize, and they quickly became the
800-pound gorillas of policy debates in many statehouses and city councils.
These groups, along with workers in health care, an industry that is now more
than 50% supported by government, help make up the public sector economy into a
powerful political force. Continue at
the following website: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/v-pfriendly/story/324691p-277566c.html
****
Brian Tilton,
Baltimore, MD brian@briantilton.com
August 25 Presentation before the
Legislature on Eminent Domain
Hi Susan, Great to
meet you again. Here's the copy of my testimony at the August 25, 2005
hearing on eminent domain before the Planning & Development Committee. Brian
….. Connecticut
is ground zero of the national debate on eminent domain. What happens
here today, and in the immediate future, will be seen and heard far beyond the
borders of this state. Prior to the Kelo ruling, eminent domain was already running rampant
in Connecticut. Much of it ended
in false promises. Ask the Cristaforo’s,
or the people in Coventry along the proposed Route 6
expressway and others around this state
who saw their land developed into something else or nothing at all. Time will tell if the City of New London is telling a lie about the promised redevelopment of Fort Trumbull.
So far, they don’t even have a plan! Take first, ask questions later. I
used to live in Connecticut.
But in 1998, I moved to Baltimore,
Maryland. Around that time,
the Baltimore County Executive floated the idea of
taking huge amounts of waterfront property in a middle class neighborhood to
give to a private developer who could do bigger and better things. But
the people fought back and they fought hard. They forced the issue to
referendum where 70% of Maryland
voters told the state legislature that private land cannot be taken to give to
a private developer. If you took that same vote in Connecticut today, the majority vote would
be bigger. Today provides a unique chance
to force change. First, take action to protect the remaining Fort Trumbull
homeowners. Let the development they never opposed occur, but LET THEM
STAY! Second, firm your resolve to
protect all homeowners by passing an amendment to the Connecticut Constitution. It should
basically say that private land should never be taken and given to a private
developer. It should only be taken for true “public use” such highways,
schools, parks, and the like. The property taken must remain in direct
government control at all times. No handing it off to quasi-public
agencies. If any land confiscated ever falls out of the direct control of
the government or turns into a for-profit venture, it should be automatically
made available to the previous owner, or their heirs, for the amount of just
compensation awarded or fair market value at the time of reacquisition,
whichever is less. The people would
overwhelmingly support it. Only a constitutional amendment can withstand
activist judges than a mere statute that can be changed on a whim. Ten years ago, I ran for office as a third
party candidate in the town of Windham
based largely on eminent domain. That’s why I’m here today. I’m sad
to see what I warned about back then, has come true today. I’m sick of
the false promises. I’m sick of seeing people lose the homes of their
dreams they worked so hard for.We may be fighting
terrorism abroad, but, left unchecked, the government of this state will
continue to terrorize its own citizens.-Brian Tilton Baltimore, MD
****
Experts
Warn Debt May Threaten Economy 8/28/2005
(AP) You owe
$145,000. And the bill is rising every day. That's how much it would cost every
American man, woman and child to pay the tab for the long-term promises the U.S. government
has made to creditors, retirees, veterans and the poor. And it's not even taking into account credit
card bills, mortgages _ all the debt we've racked up personally. Savings? The
average American puts away barely $1 of every $100 earned. Our profligate ways
at home are mirrored in Washington and in the
global marketplace, where as a society America spends $1.9 billion more a
day on imported clothes and cars and gadgets than the entire rest of the world
spends on its goods and services. A new
Associated Press/Ipsos poll finds that barely a third
of Americans would cut spending to reduce the federal deficit and even fewer
would raise taxes. If those figures
seem out of whack to you, if they seem to cut against the way you learned to
handle money, if they seem like a recipe for a national economic nightmare _
well, then, at least you're not alone.
Continued at this website…. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/28/ap/business/mainD8C8KGL00.shtml
****
CRRA
mixed up in fed garbage probe
KEN DIXON dixon.connpost@snet.net
Connecticut Post 9/2/05
HARTFORD — The federal investigation into organized crime and the state's solid
waste haulers has expanded to include the Connecticut Resources Recovery
Authority, the Connecticut Post has learned.
A federal grand jury in New
Haven has demanded the quasi-public trash authority
produce evidence regarding possible violations of trash-hauling regulations,
according to documents released Thursday under the state's Freedom of
Information Act. Continued at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9172627/
****
Town (Wethersfield)
votes to limit eminent domain powers
By: G. C. Gould , Staff Writer 9/2/2005
The town council voted unanimously to limit the town's eminent domain powers at
a meeting Aug. 22. The ordinance, which
was Republican-introduced but which passed 6-0, places certain restrictions on
the use of eminent domain powers in Wethersfield
by the Town of Wethersfield
or its agents. Absent from the meeting
were Andrew Adil (D), Christine Fortunato
(D), and John Cascio (R). Mayor Russell Morin (D) said the ordinance
was a "statement that the town supports its people. It's more of a
commitment by the town to let people know we insist on protecting their
rights," he said. The newly passed
Chapter 12 of the Wethersfield
code of ordinances states: "no owner-occupied residential real property
consisting of four or fewer dwelling units may be acquired by eminent domain
for economic development purposes pursuant to General Statutes 8-128 to 8-133
inclusive, if the resulting project will be privately owned or controlled.
Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the use of eminent domain
powers for public purposes including but not limited to the construction of
sewers, highways, sidewalks, rights of way, flood and erosion control purposes
or for any other transaction where the property rights acquired will be held or
controlled by the town of Wethersfield."
Continued
at the following website:
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15144317&BRD=1662&PAG=461&dept_id=11233&rfi=6
****
Congratulations to James Brezniak
who led the drive to protect property owners in Putnam Susan
Putnam decides against use of eminent domain
By DON BOND
Norwich Bulletin PUTNAM-- What happened in New
London won't happen in Putnam. A handful of Putnam voters decided Thursday that
the town will not be able to use eminent domain to acquire private property for
private or controlled economic development purposes. The measure was approved 142-32. The majority
of the votes favoring the measure were cast in the voting district that covers
the area outside the downtown Special Services District. There, the measure was
approved 74-11, while Special Services District voters favored the proposal by
a 68-21 margin.Only 174, or 3.6 percent, of the
town's 4,824 registered voters cast ballots in the referendum. Continued at the following website: http://norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050902/NEWS01/509020312&SearchID=73219631901177
****
Check out the entire story and links at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/are-people-dying-over-her_b_6604.html Dennie
Are People Dying Over Here Because We're Fighting Them Over There? (48 comments )
Is the aftermath of Katrina part of the price we are paying for Iraq?
To the growing list of collateral damage caused by the Iraq war and Bush's stunningly inept leadership,
we can now add the city of New Orleans.
It's no surprise that RNC chairman Ken Mehlman doesn't want "politics" injected into the national discussion
about Katrina.
Or that
Scottie McClellan would echo that "this is not a time for politics." Of
course not, when President Bush's politics and policies have made this
disastrous situation so much worse than it otherwise would have been.
In his absurd and insulting "flypaper theory" Bush likes to posit an
intrinsic connection between what's going on in Iraq and what's going on here at
home. His version of the theory is, of course, completely wrong, but he's right
that there is a connection. And it's a tragic one. And 100% airtight: every
national guardsman who is in Iraq
(and there are 118,000 of them) is one less guardsman who can help out right now in Mississippi and Louisiana.
About 40 percent of Mississippi's National
Guard and 35 percent of Louisiana's -- a
combined total of roughly 6,000 troops -- are unavailable to help out because they are currently in Iraq. And
despite the protestations of unnamed officials that "this had not hurt the
relief effort," does anyone really believe that having 6,000 more
well-trained citizen-soldiers on hand would not have made a huge difference?
As Lt. Andy Thaggard, a spokesman for the Mississippi National
Guard, put it: "Missing the personnel is the big thing in this
particular event. We need our people."
****